I don"t regard homosexual people any less than heterosexual people.

One things I do not agree with is

them being allowed to get married (specifically married. ) I agree that they should be allowed to adopt
children (as long as those children already have no parents) because any parents that are loving and
together are better than no parents

Now marriage. For many centuries, Marriage has been made as a conscious decision between two
people to become unified in a way that would support the benifit and growth of children and each
other. This was made between a man and a woman for quite a few reasons. Biologically, And through
evolution, The mother and the father of a child have important roles that they need to be filled. A child
thrives best in an environment where there are both their biological father and mother. The decision of
marriage has never been purely about love, But it has always been a conscious decision for the upraising
of offspring. This is, Of course, Not to say that two men, Or two woman, Are the absolute worst
environment to raise children, But rather that the best happens to scientifically be a mother and a father
(Brown, S. (2010). Marriage and Child Well-Being: Research and Policy Perspectives. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 72(5), 1059-1077. Retrieved from http://www. Jstor. Org/stable/40865595).

The union between two people of the same sex is simply not the same as the union between a man and
a woman. This is not to say that their love is any less than a heterosexual couple (it could just as much
be more) just that by calling the union of two people of the same sex "marriage" is simply just not true.
Rather we could ulternitavely create these people their own unique type of union, For calling a triangle a
three sided square is not truth. By constantly changing this word, "marriage", We a slowly degrading it.
The meaning and value of the word has significantly decreased over the years. First the permanency,
With the legality of divorce, And now the meaning itself.

Just because two people love each other does not mean marriage should occur. For example, Many
parents love their own children greatly. . . But parents have never needed to marry their own children.
People may love their pets, But don"t marry them either. I"m not denying the fact that two homosexuals
love each other greatly, Just why they truely need to get married. The reason it originated as just man
and woman is because homosexuals can"t naturally produce offspring (without the use of a third party),
And by nature heterosexuals were the ones who really need marriage. Just this fact shows that it"s not
just about love, It"s about the thriving of children and the family. Once homosexual marriage is legalised
when do we stop? Will we legalise the marriage of three people? Or perhaps that marriage of humans
and other animals or plants? If love is love than why can"t this occur? Sometimes just because people
love each other does not permit the "right" to marriage.

In respond to your comment on the history of marriage, I do agree that in some cultures it was based on
uniting two families, And I do agree that it has changed over the years. . . But some change is always
beneficial, Too much change is never good. Take, For example, The analogy of corn chips. I"m making a
batch of corn chips and I decide to slightly change the recipe, I reduce the amount of salt. The outcome
of these chips are great. I then decide to change it further, I replace the corn with apples. Now I"m no
longer eating corn chips. The same thing can be applied to marriage. There is always wriggle room (in
this case the decision to make choice more important) but we shouldn"t change it so much that all
reminence of the original meaning is gone.

In response to your definition. I do agree that this is the current definition, But what I don"t agree with
is the definition itself. I quote an article by Michael F Bird -

"If marriage is the legal recognition of an emotional bond between two people then why don"t I need a
license to have an emotional bond with all sorts of people like family, Friends, Or co-workers?

If marriage is the recognition of a person"s regular sexual partner, Then why don"t I need government
permission to hook-up or to simply have a sexual relationship with any person of my choosing?

If marriage is the recognition of my domestic living arrangements, Then why don"t I need government
permission to get a roommate, A housemate, Or live-in nanny?

If marriage is about my designated heir and preferred carer, Then why don"t I just fill out a power of
attorney form and change my will? "

Marriage is the unique, Long lasting, Relationship of the male and female persons. This is what sets it
apart from other relationships. (Not to say that homosexual unions are any less than heterosexuals. )
This definition is, What I believe to be, The truest definition of marriage. I have nothing against two
homosexuals being wedded and granted all the benefits of married couples, It just should not be called
marriage. Why? For a very simple reason. . . It just isn"t. The same way that a female is a female, And a
male is a male. They are both equal, But not the same. Females don"t (and shouldn"t) need to be called
males to be considered equal, The same way that homosexual unions shouldn"t need to be called
"marriage" to be equal to heterosexual unions.

Also a statistics show that fatherlessness does show increases in poverty, Which shows that both the
mother and the father have equally important roles to play as parents, And homosexual parents can"t
fill those needs as well as heterosexual parents. I do agree that good homosexual parents are better
than bad heterosexual parents, But by having homosexual parents you just opening up the amount of
possibilities for bad parents! Now you can have a bad mother, Two bad mothers, A bad father, Two bad
fathers, A bad father and a good mother, A good mother and a bad father. . . Etc.

In response to your response on my comments (try saying that ten times fast. . ) on the marriage
between plants, Animals, And children, I wouldn"t like to clarify that when I said "children" I meant
"child of the person" not necessarily someone young. (A 50 year old mother marrying her 20 year old
son. ) You also stated that ". . . Not only is it offensive to gay people but it is not an equal comparison. "
In all respect many years ago people would say the same thing if their marriage was compared to a
homosexual one, So in the future your comment might be considered offensive to those who have
relationships with plants, Animals ect. Also, If homosexual marriages were legal for the insentive of
"love" than surely incest marriage should be allowed to take place as well?

There will also be various, Radical new laws to be put into place to correspond to this new legislation,
These laws are taking away things like religious freedom.

84% of the entire world population has a religion and various religion forbid Sam sex marriages. Whilst
these religion may or may not be correct, It has always been a priority to respect the opinions of others.
With homosexual marriages taking place religious freedom is slowly being squandered. People are being
prosecuted for not catering, Or providing flowers for homosexual marriages. I believe that, Yes it isn"t
correct for people to discriminate, But I don"t believe that they should be prosecuted based on their
opinion.

This new law will also slowly leak into the education system. In countries like Australia where this new
laws was just passed, A contriversious new program was launched called "safe schools. " This education
program was to be implemented into every school by the end of this year. This program forces
unscientific theory into the minds of children when they are most vulnerable to misinformation. This
program includes false statistics, Unscientific "facts", And political theory. This entire system was
described as being a "packaged deal" with homosexual marriage. We should take Australia as a warning
of the things that could amount from a legislation like this.

Sources:

https://www. Washingtontimes. Com/blog/watercooler/2012/dec/23/84-percent-world-population-

has-faith-third-are-ch/

https://www. Acl. Org.

Au/what_if_i_told_you_there_was_a_reasonable_case_against_same_sex_marriage#splash-signup

https://www. Studentwellbeinghub. Edu. Au/docs/default-source/all-of-us-online-version-may-2016-v3-

pdf2af89fb756c645d9b8492a68a39765f6. Pdf? Sfvrsn=0

http://youreteachingourchildrenwhat. Org/safe-schools-coalition/

https://billmuehlenberg. Com/2018/04/19/safe-schools-and-the-war-against-children-and-parents/

https://blogs. Spectator. Co. Uk/2015/06/if-love-now-rules-supreme-should-incest-and-polygamy-also-

be-legalised/

http://www. Fathers. Com/statistics-and-research/the-consequences-of-fatherlessness/

Second. It is strictly against familial values. Children that are raised by both men and women have a
higher chance to be successful than gay parents, Because it is simply a matter of receiving both diverse
influence from a man and a woman. It is simply that there are social roles that make people fall into
gender roles and are act differently in parental situations and the fact that you are allowing two same
gender people to be together is harmful for a developing child because you are essentially ridding them
of the influence of the opposite sex at home as a parental figure. A man can never fulfill the role of a
mother as well as a woman, And that is simply undeniable psychobiology, Just read The Boy Crisis: Why
Our Boys Are Struggling and What We Can Do about It by John Gray and Warren Farrell.

As a Christian you have been taught that man is in a fallen state. As such, Sin and death entered the
world. Man is inherently sinful. We have a sinful nature. Examples of this nature are seen even in
children. When did your parents teach you to lie? When did they teach you to take toys from your
sister? When did they teach you to hit, Bite, Or kick? They did not teach this to you, And yet somehow
we all learned these traits. This is our inborn, Sinful nature.

From my reading of the bible, I believe that all of God's commands go against our inborn, Or biologically
fallen state. For example, We are commanded not to lust, Full, Gluttonous, Selfish, Prideful, And
gossipers. In fact we are commanded to do what which is most unnatural, To turn the other cheek. .
Faithful adherents often fast, Which is absolutely against survival. Often the most difficult is that we are
commanded to have faith, Worship, And pray to a being we have not seen.

All of these go against our natural fallen state, And explicitly against evolution, Which selects against all
of these traits. What God asks is for us not to follow our fallen/inborn/genetic state, And choose the
more difficult one of self denial. The fact that something is natural, Or genetic, Should cause us to
wonder if this is something we should overcome to more closely commune with God. It may be that the
more work on puts into overcoming these traits, The more reward lies in wait, Like when Job did not
curse God for all of his troubles, Which would be the natural thing to do, And therefore he was greatly
blessed.

From my reading of the bible, I do not believe you find one commandment that asks us to do something
we naturally would do. I believe that all of the commandments contrary to nature and our inborn traits.
I am interested to see if you can list a "sin" that is natural and easy for us to follow, And are hard wired
in our genetic code.

1. What could be wrong with affirming two

people’s love and commitment to each other?
The question at issue in the same-sex marriage debate is not whether the love of same-
sex couples for each other should be affirmed, but whether it should be affirmed as
marriage. There are many ways in which families, friends, communities, and society
more generally could affirm the love and commitment of a same-sex couple that don’t
involve redefining the institution of marriage. These can and should be discussed in
their place, but this particular debate concerns marriage.
Further to this, the love and commitment of individual couples has always had a rather
uneasy relationship to marriage as an institution. While married couples are typically
expected to get married in large part on the basis of a love for and a willing commitment
to each other, the institution of marriage exists not to affirm this love and willing
commitment as such, but to create something more certain and lasting beyond that.
Marriage typically places considerable restrictions upon love. It places limitations and
pressures upon our choices of suitable partners. It denies us the right to have sexual
relationships with persons we might love outside of marriage bonds.
For many, the institution of marriage is designed to make it very difficult and costly for
them to get out of a relationship with someone that they stopped loving many years ago
and may now positively detest. While it begins with a willing commitment of two
persons to each other, marriage renders that commitment something objective and
binding upon the persons, even should the commitment become an unwilling one. The
flipside of the romantic grounding of marriage upon love and willing commitment is a
strong divorce culture, because for a significant percentage of marriages, what began as
a willing and loving commitment will not always remain that way.

While this is certainly not the only way that a same-sex marriage proponent could put
their case, it is important that we notice how the question frames the issue and the
assumptions that it betrays. 1. Society is put in the position of ‘affirming’ and
recognizing rights, downplaying the idea of the imposition of norms and duties. 2. The
focus is upon individual couples, rather than upon marriage and society more generally.
3. More particularly, the focus is upon the underwriting, rubber-stamping, facilitation,
and celebration of their volitional, dispositional, and emotive states and their sexual
desires, without such a stress upon a binding and objective commitment.

What the framing of such a question reveals is that the re-imagining of marriage taking
place in many quarters does not merely rest with the issue of whether two men or two
women can marry each other just like a man and a woman. Rather, the very sort of thing
that marriage itself is is in the process of being re-imagined. As I have argued elsewhere,
marriage is ceasing to be about institutional norms and public values and is gradually
moving towards a more privatized lifestyle consumer model.
Reframing the original question in terms of a more traditional understanding of the sort
of thing that marriage is, our hypothetical interlocutor could ask: ‘what could be wrong
with society expecting all LGBT persons willingly to commit themselves to the norm of
lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships between two persons of the same or opposite
sex, to reserve sexual relations for such bonds, to form a culture that reinforces and
supports them, to privatize displays of sexuality (though not necessarily romantic
affection), and to form a society that is ordered towards the needs and the raising of a
new generation?’ Marriage culture is binding on everyone, not merely on those who get
married.

The fact that a question of this form is so rarely asked is telling on a number of fronts. In
particular, it reveals that society in general is largely leaving behind the idea of a
‘marriage culture’. With it the idea of marriage as an institution designed to serve and
strengthen society’s fabric is being jettisoned in favour of the idea of marriage as a
private lifestyle choice that should be underwritten, affirmed, and increasingly freed
from external restrictions.

I also suspect that, despite the enthusiasm for same-sex marriage, with its affirmation of
the equality of same-sex relationships to opposite sex relationships and its puncturing of
heteronormativity, there really isn’t great enthusiasm for marriage culture within most
quarters of LGBT communities. A campaign for same-sex marriage that is championed
by a significant number of persons who are ambivalent, resistant, or even hostile to
marriage culture isn’t really going to help an institution that is already ailing within our
society. One of the things that have been most concerning in the recent debates is
realizing just how extensive this departure from marriage culture in Western society
actually is.

2. Isn’t it discriminatory for it to be illegal for two

men or two women to marry?
Once again it is important to clear up a misunderstanding within the question as it is
framed. For same-sex marriage to be illegal in the sense of being prohibited or
unauthorized by the law it would first have to be a possible entity. For a considerable
number of opponents to same-sex marriage, the key question isn’t whether same-sex
couples should have permission to get married but, if such permission were granted,
whether a same-sex marriage is even possible. The debate here is about the reality to
which ‘marriage’ refers and whether it is a reality that a same-sex couple could
constitute. The reason why circles cannot be squared or women cannot be fathers is not
on account of a lack of permission. This is the reason why one would really struggle to
find evidence of laws against same-sex marriages throughout various societies over the
course of human history: one doesn’t need to legislate against that which is considered
impossible.
The legalization of inter-racial marriage is frequently taken as an analogy for the present
same-sex marriage debates. The contrast between the two examples is illuminating,
however. There was general agreement that an inter-racial marriage was a possible
entity. The debate was purely over whether the possibility should be a legal one.
However, there is not the same agreement that a same-sex marriage is a possible entity.

This also reveals that the claim of discrimination isn’t as straightforward as assumed.
Discrimination (and, more particularly, unjust discrimination) was clearly operative in
the case of inter-racial marriages. However, if a same-sex marriage is an impossible
entity it doesn’t make sense to say that it is being discriminated against.
Even were we to grant that same-sex marriage were a possible entity, however,
discrimination against it would not necessarily be wrong. Despite the careless
contemporary uses of the term, ‘discrimination’ is not a bad thing per se.
Discrimination, when it recognizes the various natures and ends of things and treats
different things differently, is very healthy. For instance, we discriminate when we
establish ages of marital consent. We recognize that mature consent is conducive to the
health of marriage, individuals, and society and so we restrict people below certain ages
from marrying. Discrimination only becomes problematic when the grounds upon
which we are discriminating are not good ones.
The prohibition of inter-racial marriage discriminated on the basis of skin colour, which,
relative to the nature and ends of marriage, is a very bad reason upon which to
discriminate. However, in discriminating between the committed sexual partnerships of
same-sex couples and couples of the opposite sex there are many more grounds upon
which to discriminate and, relative to the ends and nature of marriage, a strong
argument can be made that they are good ones.

3. Shouldn’t we seek to treat all people equally?

This question is related to the last. The language of ‘equality’ has considerable currency
within our society. However, by itself the term ‘equality’ is largely question-begging and
tends to obscure rather than reveal. ‘Equality’ is only truly meaningful when people or
entities are in fact equal and, within the relevant context, interchangeable. When we use
‘equality’ language to speak of complex realities where genuine and significant
differences do exist, such as gender and forms of relationships, we start to presume the
very things that we need to prove.

As it functions in contemporary discourse, especially surrounding gender, sexuality, and

forms of relationships, egalitarianism tends to be a self-asserting dogma, often making it
impervious to reasonable discourse. I firmly agree with egalitarianism on the point that,
when things are truly equal relative to a particular end, they should be treated equally.
We should never discriminate between persons or entities on the basis of irrelevant
criteria. However, when we are trying to have a debate about the natures and ends of
particular realities and which criteria are relevant in particular contexts, to speak about
equality merely begs the question.

Instead of the language of equality, I suggest that we adopt the language of ‘equity’.
Equity recognizes that people are different and, taking those differences into account
and discerning differing natures and ends, is impartial, even-handed, and fair in its
administration of justice.

We all agree that equal things should be treated equally: the challenge for proponents of
same-sex marriage is to prove that, relative to the ends and nature of marriage, same-
sex pairings are actually equal to opposite sex pairings. ‘Equality’ rhetoric simply dodges
this difficult task.
4. Why should same-sex couples be denied rights
in areas such as inheritance or visitation?
I do not believe that they should. However, there are ways to grant or secure such rights
without redefining marriage. To redefine an institution as fundamental to human
society as marriage for the sole purpose of addressing such problems is extreme overkill.
More troubling, the suggestion that one not infrequently encounters that it would be a
sufficient rationale for doing so betrays an alarmingly hollow view of what marriage
actually stands for.

5. Jesus never said anything about same-sex

marriages. Why should Christians speak on the
subject?
As I have already remarked, many opponents of same-sex marriage believe that it is an
impossible entity, so it should not surprise us that Jesus never spoke about it, just as he
never spoke against women being fathers. Nevertheless, Jesus’ teaching does clearly
stand against same-sex marriage. Jesus grounds the institution of marriage firmly in the
created reality of sexual dimorphism:

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the
beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave
his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So
then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let
not man separate.” – Matthew 19:4-6

Jesus’ argument against the Sadducees in Luke 20:34-38 is also illuminating on this
front. N.T. Wright observes:

The logic of Luke’s version of Jesus’ riposte then depends for its force on two unstated
assumptions: (a) that marriage is instituted to cope with the problem that people die;
(b) angels do not die. The Levirate law, quite explicitly, had to do with continuing the
family line when faced with death; Jesus in Luke’s version, not only declares that this
law will be redundant in a world without death, but that marriage itself, even with one
husband and one wife, will likewise be irrelevant in such a world. A key point, often
unnoticed, is that the Sadducees’ question is not about the mutual affection and
companionship of husband and wife, but about how to fulfil the command to have a
child, that is, how in the future life the family line will be kept going. This is
presumably based on the belief, going back to Genesis 1.28, that the main purpose of
marriage was to be fruitful and multiply.
The purpose of marriage, both in Genesis 1 and 2 is about much more than
companionship. It is framed by the concept of vocation: the vocation of humanity to be
fruitful and multiply, to fill and subdue the earth, and Adam’s vocation to serve the
earth, to guard and keep the garden, and to uphold its law. After the Fall, marriage is
also framed by the reality of death and the need to survive and multiply in its face.
Human companionship is wonderful and many of its benefits can be enjoyed in
particular richness in the context of the lifelong bond of marriage. However, marriage
serves ends beyond this and, for Scripture, the tasks of procreation and child-rearing are
central. In the new creation, the human race will have finished these tasks and so
marriage ceases too. Companionship isn’t as primary an end of marriage in biblical
thought as it is within contemporary society, where, given the nature of our world and
our economy, companionship with a spouse has to bear the sort of existential weight
that were previously typically borne by thick relationships within a settled community.

Such a firm grounding of marriage upon both sexual dimorphism and procreation
stands sharply opposed to same-sex marriage.

Why should Christians speak to this issue? First it should be stressed that Christian
ethics should address matters of which Jesus never spoke. The fact that Jesus never
explicitly condemned bestiality doesn’t make it permissible. We have explicit commands
elsewhere in Scripture that address such things. We also have developed principles of
justice that we can bring to bear upon realities that aren’t addressed in the biblical text.

The Christian teaching on subjects such as marriage, gender, and sexuality are
extensive. Most of this teaching takes a positive form, filling out such realities as sexual
dimorphism with meaning and purpose, rather than the negative form of prohibiting
particular behaviours (although there is plenty of that too). One of the problems with
the assumption that Jesus never spoke to the subject of same-sex marriage is that,
rather than taking our bearings from close attention to the positive teaching, it
presumes that our answers would only be found in the form of negative prohibitions.
However, the positive statements that Jesus makes about marriage clearly reveal that he
is speaking about something quite different from same-sex relationships.

Christians should also speak to the subject of same-sex marriage because we are
members of society and have an interest in and duty to it. Marriage and the family that
grows from it represent the fundamental institution of the original creation. It relates us
to deep and transcendent dimensions of reality. It humanizes some of our most
fundamental animal functions and orders them to personal and societal ends. It
explores and articulates the meanings of the most basic created anthropological
difference and relationship – that between a man and a woman. We should seek to
guard this for the sake of the good of wider society and for generations to come.

6. Doesn’t all opposition to same-sex marriage

boil down to homophobia and opposition to gay
sex?
No. One does not have to exclude LGBT persons from those to whom we owe equitable
treatment and recognition of personal dignity in order to oppose same-sex marriage.
Opposition to same-sex marriage can be quite consistent with support for civil rights for
LGBT persons more generally. The arguments that I have raised against same-sex
marriage here and elsewhere do not presuppose opposition of homosexual relations, nor
even to their recognition by society. The question that we are addressing here is not
about the morality of homosexual practice (a question that must be addressed in its own
place), but about the meaning of marriage.

7. Why the fixation on same-sex marriage? Why

not the same opposition to divorce culture, for
instance? Surely husbands and wives divorcing
weaken the institution of marriage much more
than same-sex couples wishing to enter it.
Divorce culture represents a huge threat to the integrity of marriage. However, divorce
culture is a very complicated thing to address. There are valid reasons to divorce, so
making it illegal isn’t a solution: it is not divorce but divorce culture that is the problem.
Divorce is a symptom of an underlying set of problems. Often these problems don’t lie
so much with the laws surrounding divorce or even with the liberal ways in which they
are applied (although these are problems) as they do with the underlying values of the
society. Challenging and changing these values is difficult.
We attack divorce culture by attacking the values that underlie it. However, the
arguments for same-sex marriage that we are encountering at the moment are closely
bound up with or serve to strengthen many of these values. It is at points like this, when
the underlying values of the divorce culture break the surface and meet us head on –
and especially when we are asked to affirm and celebrate them – that we have the duty
to resist them.

One of the principal threats posed by same-sex marriage is that of establishing within
the very public meaning of marriage key elements of the value system integral to the
divorce culture. Same-sex marriage would not be a cultural possibility had not the
values underlying the divorce culture paved its way. One’s perspective on the current
arguments for same-sex marriage will tend to be shaped by your ranking of values
relating to such things as, for example: 1. procreation; 2. the stability of the environment
of child-rearing; 3. the relating of the two sexes to each other in society; 4. individual
choice, autonomy, and self-fulfilment; 5. the anthropological and religious significance
of sexual dimorphism; 6. sexual gratification; 7. marriage as cultural and institutional
norm (sexual exclusivity, lifelong union, avoidance of sexual relations outside of
marriage, opposition to adultery, etc.); 8. romantic love; 9. the bond between biological,
legal, and social parenthood; 10. the need for both a father and a mother and the full
involvement, commitment, and interdependence of both sexes in child-rearing; 11. the
enjoyment of social status, benefits, and perks; 12. the presence of social support
structures that uphold, inculcate, and facilitate the cultural norms.

The values that we hold most highly will be the values into which we will try to integrate
all others. However, such a process always requires sacrifice or compromise. For
instance, if romantic love is our highest value then we will tend to compromise on
marriage as a cultural and institutional norm, because the two will frequently be at odds
with each other. If we value marriage as a cultural and institutional norm very highly,
we will tend to tolerate – indeed, to expect – much greater sacrifice in such areas as the
happiness and sexual gratification of the unmarried. All of this should be fairly
straightforward and obvious.

In terms of the values listed above, traditional opposition to divorce culture would place
a high emphasis upon 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, and 12 in particular and to downplay and expect
sacrifices in the areas of 4, 6, and 8. In order to secure the best interests of children,
adults need to learn how to resolve conflicts rather than escaping them, to cope with
profound sexual frustration, and to recognize limits on their choice and autonomy. In
tackling the divorce culture we need to stress the importance of the duties and roles of
both parents and just how necessary it is to guard the integrity and unity of the bond of
parenthood. For the same reasons as we oppose divorce culture, we also seek to ensure
that marriage is a universally acknowledged cultural norm, so that children aren’t born
out of wedlock and so that all of society is committed to and focused upon making
marriage a stable and healthy institution, ordering our sexual and relational behaviour
in terms of it.

The case for same-sex marriage, however, must necessarily downplay 1, 3, 5, 9, and 10,
factors that serve as the primary basis for marriage as a socially normative institution
(7). Given the way that the core values of the institution of marriage are carefully woven
together, the significance of male-female bonding is never merely an isolated thread
within it, but is connected to everything else. Cut that thread, and don’t be surprised if
you find all sorts of other things unravelling. The arguments in favour of same-sex
marriage have typically emphasized 4, 6, 8, and 11, which, once again, has tended
drastically to diminish the significance of 7. Grounding the practice of marriage upon
choice and love may seem natural, but history has shown that it is far from a stable basis
for the institution.

The divorce culture approaches marriage as an institution ordered primarily around

adults’ ends and stresses individual autonomy. It tends to resist marriage’s demands of
couples and of society more generally, both married and unmarried. It often treats
romantic love and sexual gratification as the primary reasons both for getting and for
staying married. It tends to diminish the significance of the very same values as same-
sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage goes further, however, as such a diminishment is essential to what it

is. While divorce is a failure to attain to certain values integral to marriage, same-sex
marriage simply denies that many of these values are integral to marriage or that
necessary in the first place. Divorce culture may seriously compromise the bond
between biological, legal, and social parenthood. However, every child in a same-sex
relationship has at least three parents. Divorce culture may compromise the child’s right
to the presence of an involved father and mother. Same-sex marriage typically denies
that children need both a father and a mother.

A further and absolutely crucial difference between divorce and same-sex marriage is
that divorce has never pretended to be anything other than a tragic sign that something
has gone seriously wrong somewhere and that something sought for was not
successfully attained. However, same-sex marriage takes much of the same value system
of which divorce was a symptom and calls us both to celebrate it and to present it as
integral to the meaning of marriage. Divorce typically acknowledges the compromises
and the sacrifices that it is making: same-sex marriage strenuously denies them.

8. On what basis do opponents of same-sex

marriage say that it will lead to polygamy?
Questionable ones, I believe.

The shift to a more constructivist and malleable understanding of marriage, moving

away from close reflection upon the nature and ends of the realities with which it deals,
can definitely lead to a weakening of traditional objections to polygamy. The steady de-
institutionalization and privatization of marriage can also have the same effect: if James
and Steven’s marriage doesn’t harm mine, leaving me with no reason to object to it,
couldn’t the same be said of Simon, Linda, and Jane’s? A number of the arguments that
many bring forward for same-sex marriage prove more than they intend to and in this
sense it could be said that they will lead to polygamy.

However, I have yet to see a convincing reason why legalizing same-sex marriage will
open a legal door to polygamy. Nor, more importantly, is there much of a cultural desire
for it: the will of our society is running in very different directions. Even if polygamy
were made possible, it would be fringe in contrast to same-sex marriage, which is in the
mainstream. The following are a few reasons why polygamy goes against the zeitgeist.
1. Polygamy is characterized by a fairly extreme gender differentiation. The current
trend is in precisely the opposite direction.

2. Polygamy has male-female bonds at its heart. It is worth remembering that polygamy
is not one man entering into one marriage within many wives, but one man entering
into many marriages with many wives. The wives are not married to each other. There is
an essential affirmation of sexual dimorphism and the fact that a marriage is built
around the committed sexual relationship between a single man and a single woman at
the heart of polygamy, even if those relationships aren’t exclusive.
3. Polygamous groups tend to be highly procreative and polygamous families tend to
place a lot of emphasis on children. Marriage is oriented towards the production of a
new generation, not mere sexual gratification or romantic companionship. Once again,
this is directly contrary to the current trend.

4. Polygamous marriages tend to challenge the sentimental nuclear ideal of the family,
expanding the family beyond a unitary bond of affection and making it far more of a
public and communal reality that transcends and limits the will and entitlement of those
within it.

5. Polygamy tends to be de-individualizing, particularly for women and children. While

it produces more children, the polygamous family invests less in each particular one. It
also stresses roles, limitations, and one’s ‘place’ within a greater order, not hinging upon
and affirming the choices of sovereign individuals.

6. Polygamy typically relies upon a vision of marriage that is neither companionate nor
romantic in character. Almost the entire reason for same-sex marriage’s plausibility to
contemporary society rests upon such a notion of marriage.

7. Being procreative in orientation, polygamy would typically stress the connection

between sex and marriage, ironically strongly maintaining many of the values that we
associate with ‘monogamy’. Polygamous marriages are not typically ‘open’, ‘non-
monogamous’, or ‘monogamish’ marriages in the sense that many more modern
relationships are.

It is worth remembering that polygamy is typically practised in more conservative

religious communities. This really isn’t an accident. Polygamy is in many respects the
antithesis of same-sex marriage. While polygamists could exploit the current inclarity
concerning marriage for their ends, we should not fool ourselves into thinking that
polygamy is the direction that things are heading. Polyamory is a far more likely
suspect: it is romantically driven, gender neutral, oriented towards the satisfaction of
individual desires, more fluid and renegotiable, more sexually open to outsiders, and
typically non-procreative.

9. Couldn’t same-sex marriage lead to a

strengthening of marriage as an institution?
Following all of the focus over the last few years of the same sex marriage debate upon
marriage being primarily about the love, choice, rights, and affirmation of individuals’
desires by society, it is unlikely that we are about to see a return to marriage as a true
cultural norm that would be prepared to compromise or limit those things to maintain
its institutional integrity. What we are seeing is a de-institutionalization of marriage for
everyone, as the wider public has largely bought into the same notion.
I have encountered suggestions that a lowering of the divorce rate in some countries
where same-sex marriage has been introduced is evidence for such a strengthening.
Beyond the fact that divorce rates are complicated things to interpret, given the
difference in the duration of the marriages involved, it must be recognized that divorce
rates have generally dropped because far fewer people are marrying in the first place.
When only those who are most committed to the institution bother to get married in the
first place, a decline in the rate of divorce is exactly what we should expect to see. The
more telling figure is the percentage of the population that marries in the first place.

Also, as a number of the ends integrated by marriage are slowly detached and
downplayed, we should expect to see a further chipping of the coin of marriage in
various ways. The value of monogamy will be weakened in favour of open marriages,
non-monogamy, and ‘monogamish’ relationships. Marriage may also become less
oriented to the needs of children and more focused upon the rights of adults. In such a
situation, even those who do get married are committing themselves to much less.
The effect of same-sex marriage is not really about the cumulative effect of particular
gay couples getting married. Its true damage arises from the corrosive influence of the
system of values that it champions and establishes. This system of values isn’t an
invention of LGBT communities. Rather, it is a system of values that has been operative
in wider society for some time. The problem with same-sex marriage is that it
establishes this system of values as the new orthodoxy, the public meaning of marriage,
accelerating the change in what marriage means for everyone and making reversal of
these unhealthy trends exceedingly difficult.

It shouldn’t surprise us if same-sex marriage further decreases the number of people

who marry (as marriage moves from being a cultural norm to a private lifestyle choice),
increasing the number of children born out of wedlock. Nor should it surprise us if it
reinforces the values of divorce culture (as that is the flipside of the romantic view of
marriage that makes love its all-encompassing rationale), and gives pace to the
movement towards a loosening of the values of monogamy.

My suspicion is that same-sex marriage and increasingly marriage in general, as it will

be practised in the future, will be more of a class-based entity, focused on the class
status signalled by the lavish wedding and upper-middle class domestic lifestyle. It will
function as a social norm to some degree, but the emphasis will be on the desirable
social appearance that marriage confers, and much less upon its integral values.
Weddings will be bigger, but marriages will be weaker. Such a form of marriage, with its
greater emphasis on marriage as ‘sign value’, serving to indicate social status and
provide a context for shared consumption, will also tend to discourage the poor from
entering into the marriage market in the first place.
10. If we oppose same-sex marriages, should we
support civil partnerships?
Before attempting to address this question, we must stress its distinction from the same-
sex marriage question. A rejection of same-sex marriage need not entail a rejection of
civil partnerships, as civil partnerships aren’t subject to quite the same critique, having a
rather different character. On this particular issue, it seems to me that our answers are
less clear-cut and must be determined through a process of careful discernment and
deliberation, taking into account the nature of the unions in questions, society’s interest
in them, and their relationship to society’s broader interests and forms. Rather than
providing a direct answer to this question, I will discuss some of the issues that we must
take into consideration and leave it

We should recognize that same-sex relationships can often exhibit traits that are
conducive to the health of society. Even those of us who have ethical objections to
homosexual practice should be able to recognize the positive dimensions of a
commitment between two persons for mutual support, provision, and companionship.
We can also recognize that, while it is not the ideal situation of being raised by a mother
and a father, and by one’s biological parents, a child raised in a stable household with
two parents or guardians of the same sex is probably better off in many respects than a
child raised by a single parent. There is a strong argument to be made that the interests
of wider society are served by a number of these things, so we have good cause to ask
how these values can be supported and encouraged.

Society also has an interest in orienting all of its members to the service of common
‘goods’. In large part this orientation requires that the goods of society are clearly
rendered ‘common’, rather than exclusive to certain parties. As a society we need to
champion a mutually invested relationship between society and its members, ensuring,
to the degree that we can, that every member of society is valued by the wider society
and that wider society is valued by every one of its members. Inclusive and democratic
institutions are ways in which the threat of social alienation is combatted.

Relating these different areas of concern isn’t always easy. There are many occasions
when the interests of particular members of society won’t be conducive to the good of
society as a whole. When tolerance and inclusion become our overriding goals, we can
often find that the bonds of society are weakened in the process. When inclusion
becomes our overriding end, social tensions are reduced, but at the cost of
fragmentation, distance, and the compromising of key social goods. These are concerns
that I raised in my post on same-sex relationships and the institutional character of
marriage.
It should be stressed that the task of securing these social goods and inclusion does not
primarily rest on the shoulders of the law or the government, but upon the family,
church, and a host of other civic institutions, and also upon business and the economy.
As society privileges forms of relationships and commitments that are much conducive
to the broader social good there will always be forms of discrimination. However, the
justifiable social privileging of marriage does not mean that unmarried persons need be
socially alienated. Society has often sought ways to invest itself in the lives of those who
are not members of its primary institutions and to ensure that, in turn, these persons
are invested in the social order in various ways.

As an unmarried person, for instance, I may not be directly included in the institution of
marriage, but I have experienced its benefits less directly in numerous ways – as a child
in a stable and loving home, as one invited into the life of loving families, as someone
with a strong and tightly knit extended family, as someone whose gender has been
valued in my communities on account of its association with committed fatherhood, and
as someone who has enjoyed the strong bonds of communities where marriage and its
values are central. The great value placed upon marriage demands various sacrifices of
me, but I am prepared and enabled to make them in large measure because I know that
many of my communities honour me for and support me in making them and because I
see in those communities something for which it is well worth sacrificing.

As an institution, marriage has always been about socially approved and supported
sexual partnerships. This isn’t all that it is about, but this sexual dimension has always
been essential to its social value. If there is one thing that we can typically assume about
marriage partners, it is that there is a sexual dimension to their relationship. This sexual
dimension has been valued because sexual relations between a man and a woman relate
to primary ends of our human nature. It fulfils the primary purpose of sexual
dimorphism and establishes strong and lasting relations between the genders, the two
halves of the human race. The sexual relationship between a man and a woman is also,
crucially, the way that the human race procreates and, as a result, produces very ‘public’
effects. For these reasons, wider society has a vested interest in the sexual relationships
between the two sexes.

This vested interest, however, does not exist in the case of sexual relations between two
persons of the same sex. Although friends and relatives may value and desire to
celebrate the love and intimacy of the same-sex couple, the fact that the couple will be
sleeping together is irrelevant to the wider society: it is a principally private fact.

The problem that attends civil partnerships is that they typically connect the enjoyment
of social benefits to the presence of a sexual relationship. However, the positive ways
that committed same-sex partnerships can serve the wider social good are not ultimately
contingent upon their sexual dimension. For this reason, it is unjustly discriminatory to
withhold the same privileges from couples prepared to make a commitment to each
other without a sexual element. The presence of a sexual relationship would be an
irrelevant criterion on which to discriminate.

This, I believe, gets us closer to the nub of the cultural issue that we are facing here. It is
not really about the enjoyment of equal social perks and protections. Rather, it is about
the insistence that homosexual relations are no less valuable to society than
heterosexual ones. The push for same-sex marriage is really about a concerted attack
upon the primary bastion of ‘heteronormativity’. What is being sought in civil
partnerships, and even more insistently in same-sex marriage, is the public affirmation
and celebration of homosexual sex, as interchangeable with marital sex between a man
and woman.

The truth that cannot be acknowledged is that sexual relations between members of the
same sex are not, in fact, equal in value and significance to those between men and
women. This is not to deny the great level of intimacy and commitment that can exist
between same-sex couples, but to make the surprisingly controversial point that the
objective meaning and value of sexual relations between men and women goes so much
beyond mere private intimacy. It is for this reason that they should be privileged, not
merely over same-sex relationships, but also over the important relationships enjoyed
by the rest of us who are unmarried.

To make civil partnerships contingent upon homosexual sex or to offer same-sex

marriages would be unjustly discriminatory against those who serve the same social
goods apart from sexual relations. It would treat homosexual sex as if it entitled people
to special treatment, apart from a demonstration of its objective value relative to wider
social goods and ends. The insistence of a powerful lobby upon such recognition is not
sufficient to render such recognition ‘just’.

So, returning to a point with which we begun: same-sex relationships do in fact serve
certain wider social ends and goods and, to the extent and in the manner that they do
this, they deserve society’s support and recognition. This is merely a matter of equity.
For this reason, I believe that such things as rights of visitation and inheritance should
be easy for such couples to obtain and that there should also be certain tax benefits.
Where non-sexual relationships serve the same social goods and ends, they should
receive exactly the same recognition.

Should society establish a separate institution for such couples or merely make legal
provisions for them as private (and bespoke) contractual relationships? Alternatively, it
could restrict itself to providing benefits to less formally recognized relationships. The
key problem to tackle here is whether such an institution would end up weakening
marriage. This is a distinct danger, as illustrated by something like the PACS system in
France, which has created a two-tiered marriage culture.
None of this need deny communities, churches, families, and individuals from
celebrating and giving form to their lives and relationships. By not providing them with
formal institutional recognition, the state would not be rendering same-sex
relationships illegal, nor denying their subjective importance to those within them, but
just denying the state’s vested interest in them. There are various deeply meaningful life
commitments and relationships that justifiably lack such recognition. There may be
certain tax benefits that are attendant on committing oneself to lifelong membership of
a monastic community, for instance, but there isn’t necessarily a good reason why the
state need provide formal and institutional recognition to this commitment.
The criteria by which religious communities will determine whether or not to provide
formal recognition to same-sex partnerships are different as they have a different set of
interests that could be vested within such unions.

11. What about same-sex couples adopting?

Once again, this is a decision that must be made on the basis of equity and close
attention to the common good. The primary rights under consideration should always
be those of the children. Discrimination, in the sense of wise and careful discernment of
relevant factors, is essential, as is close attention to the dimensions of specific situations.

Same-sex couples cannot offer children the same things as male and female married
couples. They cannot offer children the form of the natural family. They cannot offer
children a mother and a father. These facts provide strong basis for discrimination and
favouring of male and female couples over same-sex couples in many situations.
However, it does not mean that same-sex couples cannot prove good parents, nor that
they are not the right choice as adoptive parents in certain situations.

We must also recognize that our actions in such areas have broader consequences. The
more same-sex couples adopt, the more widespread will be the loss of the public norm
of children having both a mother and a father as committed presences in their lives.
Schools and other organizations will be even more discouraged from referring to
mothers and fathers. For the sake of the sensitivities of the children within them, same-
sex relationships will also be steadily normalized, much as has happened in the case of
single parenthood.

12. Isn’t the ‘redefinition’ of marriage a

misnomer, as marriage has never been defined in
the first place?
There is an important point to make here: marriage was never ‘defined’ into existence.
Rather, a natural reality was recognized and adumbrated with a fitting institutional
form and protection. This natural reality has several dimensions, including: 1. Sexual
dimorphism; 2. Sexual partnership between men and women as the primary context
towards which this is ordered and in which union between the two halves of the human
race is most powerfully secured; 3. The procreative nature of the union between man
and woman; 4. The appropriateness of heterosexual desire to the natural ordering of our
bodies, the sexual dimorphism of the human race, and the process of procreation; 5. The
bond between children and their biological parents; 6. The bonds of blood more
generally.
Different societies have articulated these realities in very different ways. However,
substantial agreement exists across cultures and human history that these realities are
in fact clear and constant features of our human nature. They didn’t come into existence
through our definition, nor will they disappear through a redefinition.

Abraham Lincoln is popularly credited with having asked the question ‘if we should call
the dog’s tail a leg, how many legs would it have?’ To the answer ‘five’, he pointed out
that the true answer was four: calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one. In like manner,
calling same-sex relationships ‘marriages’ does not make them so, as they lack a clear
relationship to the realities that ‘marriage’ names.
In answer to the question, then: no, I do not believe that it is a misnomer. However, the
‘redefinition’ is not a response to a human definition of marriage, but rather to the
‘definition’ of marriage as the form that arises from the very natural realities that it
articulates.

13. Can and should Christians argue from a

position that does not grant the legitimacy of
same-sex relations for the sake of argument?
The concern underlying this question is that we don’t, through a constant bracketing of
the question of the morality of homosexual practice, end up abandoning the historic
Christian conviction that homosexual practice is contrary to divine will and human
nature.

This is definitely an important concern. Accommodating our arguments to the

limitations of a rapidly shifting Overton window of public discourse can unintentionally
lead to a withdrawal from or weakening of conviction upon positions that are deeply
objectionable to the wider public. Prudence and shrewdness in argumentation should
not lead to an abandonment of principle.
For the vast majority of those who deny the moral legitimacy of same-sex relationships,
the question of the legitimacy of same-sex marriage has already been settled elsewhere,
before it was even raised. This makes it difficult for them to establish common ground
with those who do not share their moral objections to homosexual practice. As I believe
that no position can develop a perfect immunity to the claims of truth and that,
wherever people stand, there are ways of challenging them with it, I don’t have a
problem with granting opponents many things for the sake of argument. While I want to
make clear that my arguments against same-sex marriage do not typically depend upon
opposition to homosexual practice, I am prepared to give an explanation for why I am
also opposed to that when people ask me. The following is what I believe to be the basic
rationale for the position outlined in Scripture.

There are, I believe, clear and strong divine condemnations of homosexual practice in
Scripture. These condemnations do not focus merely upon culturally contingent forms
of homosexual practice, but draw our attention to the essential form of homosexual
relations themselves. The strength of the scriptural case against homosexual practice
does not, however, rest upon prohibitions of homosexual practice so much as upon its
positive teaching about the appropriate context, nature, and ends of human sexual
behaviour.

The common conservative Christian way of reasoning on the subject of same-sex

marriage begins with the divine commands against homosexual practice and works from
those to the illegitimacy of same-sex marriage. In this respect, Christians opposed to
homosexual practice and same-sex marriage reason in much the same direction as those
who support homosexual practice and same-sex marriage: both reason from
sexuality/sexual practice to marriage. While such reasoning holds up on its own terms, I
submit that we would be much better off if we learned to think the other way around –
from marriage to sexuality and sexual activity.

For this reason, I think that we need to begin with a strong and richly developed
understanding of marriage and reason from there. It is from this point that we will have
the greatest traction in the debate about the morality of homosexual practice. This is
where we will begin to understand something of the biblical rationale for the prohibition
of homosexual practice. Rather than throwing detached biblical commandments and
seemingly arbitrary condemnations at the question, we will address it with a rich
positive case for the appropriate ends and nature of marriage and the place that sex
occupies within it. In light of such a case, the reasons for the scriptural condemnation of
homosexual practice will become more apparent.

Framing matters in terms of homosexual practice versus heterosexual practice obscures

matters considerably as far as scriptural teaching is concerned. Scripture’s reasoning in
these areas does not operate in terms of ‘sex’ as such, or even in terms of heterosexual
sex as such, but in terms of the purity and honour of the marriage bed and God’s
judgment and condemnation of fornicators and adulterers who dishonour it by their
behaviour (Hebrews 13:4). Scripture doesn’t give us a theology of sex in the abstract, but
a theology of marriage and the marriage bed.

For Scripture, the vocation of procreation is central to the blessed calling given to the
human race as originally created and it is regarded as integral to the purpose of
marriage. Sexual difference is also given huge significance as the one created difference
that is rendered constitutive to some degree of humanity’s bearing of the image of God.
The marital union between a husband and a wife is an icon of the unity of the human
race, both in its source and its telos. Marriage exists to order human behaviour to higher
ends and meaningfully to articulate our nature as created beings.
Marriage relates us to realities that transcend us and to realities that are quite other to
us: to the meaning of our sexed bodies, to the other sex, to the one flesh union of
physical intercourse between husband and wife, to the mystery of procreation, to
offspring, to the intergenerational and extended reality of the family, and to the God
whose image and vocation we express. Consequently, marriage is taken with the utmost
seriousness, as something that orients and relates us to some of the deepest realities of
our creaturely existence.

When the Scriptures speak of homosexual relations as an ‘abomination’, it is against this

background that it is speaking: it is seen as a violation, perversion, and dishonouring of
some of the most important dimensions of human existence and a distorting of the very
image of God. This is why, in Scripture, homosexual practice falls in the same category
that we would put something like the creation of a human-animal hybrid – it is regarded
as a moral monstrosity, a sin against human nature itself. It is seen to cut loose sexual
practice from the transcendent objective realities for which it was given to connect us
and to create an inverted reality in their place, one that no longer clearly directs
sexuality outward to serve a reality greater than itself.

Homosexual practice is seen to dis-integrate sexuality from its proper ends, leading to a
more general sexual and existential disorientation within society as a whole.
Incidentally, it is interesting to observe that, in a culture where sex is very firmly
oriented towards ends that exceed mere sexual pleasure, homosexuality and
masturbation don’t even appear on the cultural radar. Sexual pleasure can clearly occur
and be highly valued in such a context, but it is never detached from something beyond
itself, as it is within a contraceptive culture such as ours.
The reason why we find it hard to understand the reasoning behind this is because we
tend to consider sexual behaviour in detachment from these ends and more from the
perspective of personal sexual gratification, individual self-fulfilment, romance, and
autonomous meaning. Sex means what consenting adults want it to mean, can serve
whatever purposes they want, and such sex can’t reasonably be said to hurt anyone else.

We have also so tied personal identity and human intimacy to sexual relations that to
deny the legitimacy of some people’s desired sexual relations is seen to deprive them of
meaningful existence. The form of modern society, where we are increasingly rootless
and deep and intimate friendships are considerably harder to develop, doesn’t make this
any easier. Furthermore, when the wider society is so geared towards indulgence and
realization of one’s own desires, it naturally seems quite cruel and unreasonable to deny
one class of persons such a right. We have lost stomach for sacrifice, both our own and
those of others. However, such sacrifice is necessary if we are to pursue something
greater than our own pleasure.

In Scripture, the widespread practice and toleration of homosexuality is presented as an

indictment, not so much upon a particular class of individuals, but upon an entire
society. It is a sign that the whole culture has been sexually disoriented and not a
judgment exclusively upon those who engage in such relations. Consequently,
addressing society with Scripture’s teaching is a matter that calls for considerable
wisdom, care, and sensitivity. The culpability of individuals within such a disoriented
society is severely diminished, as their sins are less witting. Furthermore, our actions in
such a disoriented context often arise, less from a highly developed vicious will than
from the natural ruts along which desire is trained to move within such a context.
For someone who is naturally predisposed to homoerotic desire (and, while I don’t think
that it is sufficient as an explanation, it seems clear to me that homosexuality has a
biological component), remaining chaste in our society would be an incredibly difficult
task, while remaining chaste in others would be considerably easier. If the sexuality of
the general population wasn’t so frequently perverted and self-serving, such persons
would have a considerably easier time of it and we would no longer be put in the
position of demanding seemingly unreasonable moral heroics of them, expecting an
unfortunate class of persons to bear a heavy burden while we show no restraint. The
biblical teaching on homosexuality is not designed to create a sexual ‘leper’ class of those
who experience homoerotic desires. Like the rest of us, our friends, relatives,
neighbours, and acquaintances who experience such desires are struggling with the
disorientation and dis-integration of fallen human nature.

It should be stressed that the scriptural teaching on marriage holds heterosexuals to a

standard that is equally unbending. Sexual relationships outside of marriage are
condemned, whether fornication or adultery. Sexual unions are expected to be lifelong
and exclusive, even in cases where sexual gratification is no longer possible.

While I believe that the position that I have outlined above is the appropriate Christian
position, it is one that wider society and a significant proportion of the Church would
vehemently oppose. While I believe that a strong case against same-sex marriage can be
made without the above points – and that we are wiser to present it in such a manner –
I also believe that my comments above illustrate the difficulty that a full and rich
cultural understanding and practice of marriage has with homosexual practice.

14. Some, especially John Boswell, have argued

that the adelphopoiesis ceremony was designed
to create marriage-like unions between members
of the same sex in a Christian context. Can we
take this as precedent for same-sex marriages?
Perhaps the best analogy for adelphopoiesis unions would be something like adoptions,
and we see them related to adoptions in certain contexts. They are more general
kinship-forming unions, rather than the equivalent of marriages. Of course, marriage
involves a sort of adoption (a fact more pronounced in certain cultures, but we still
speak of daughters- and sons-, brothers- and sisters-, mothers- and fathers-in-law), and
wives can be regarded as ‘sisters’ (one sees this within biblical texts on occasions, for
instance), but this dimension is secondary. Also, like adoption, adelphopoiesis was not
regarded as an exclusive relationship: one could form such relationships with a number
of parties. The other reason why adoption might provide an apt comparison is that
adoption is about the negotiation of bonds where emotional attachment may or may not
be present, but where what emotional attachments exist are regarded as non-sexual in
character.
Differences between the adelphopoiesis union and adoption (and the adoption
dimensions of marriage) could be found in the more private character
of adelphopoiesis unions, which do not seem to register the same changes in
relationships within the broader kinship structures. They also have a more clearly
defined bilateral aspect than one would find in many adoptions.
As ceremonies they bound two men together in a sort of fictive kinship as ‘brothers’.
They were not that common and were only practised in a few areas of the church. If the
blessing of a sexual union (as in the case of marriage) between two persons of the same
sex could be proved to be part of these rites, or their theology, then Boswell would have
a strong case. However, there isn’t. It also neglects to make clear that those brought
together in such rites were often already married.

If these rites really were marriages, it should be demonstrated that they formed broader
unions between families (as in the case of genuine marriage in such cultures), and not
just a union between two individuals. If these unions really were marriages, it should be
shown that the same grounds and procedure exist for their dissolution.

We should recognize that these rites occurred in a society with all sorts of kinship bonds
(spiritual kinship, voluntary and other forms of fictive kinship) that extended far beyond
marriage and the nuclear family. They also occurred in times when much that we might
deem homoerotic wasn’t regarded as having the same erotic dimension. Men (who
frequently had wives) kissing, living together, sharing the same bed, entering into deep
vows of friendship, and having profoundly emotional bonds are common in many
societies prior to and outside of modern West culture (there are references to all of these
things in the Bible), right alongside strong condemnations of homosexual intercourse.

There are potential anachronisms on all sides here. We should recognize that our model
of romantic and companionate marriage hasn’t always been the historical norm. We
should further recognize that there were no ‘heterosexuals’ or ‘homosexuals’ in the eras
in which these rites were practised, only homosexual acts and coitus, marriage, other
kinship bonds, and situations of their absence.

In many of these societies, in the context of strong gender differentiation in areas of

social activity, in education, etc., the most powerful emotional bonds were between
persons of the same sex, even though sexual bonds were only sanctioned between males
and females, and within the context of marriage. Deep homoaffective bonds should not
be presumed to be homoerotic or to have a sexual component.

On the other hand, we should not presume that all of the things that we associate with
marriage (companionate bonds, romantic bonds, cohabitation, pooling of resources, the
social expectation of sexual exclusivity, an entrance into union with a publicly witnessed
vow, etc.) have always been associated with it, regarded as exclusive to it, or functioned
similarly in relation to it in all cultures and places. Before labelling these as ‘marriages’,
it should be demonstrated that they were regarded as equivalent to marriages within the
cultures in which they were practised, or that they clearly include those elements that
constitute a marriage as such within our culture. On the other hand, while I don’t
believe that these were marriages on either of those counts, we should be prepared to
recognize that, within their historical context, they may have had dimensions that we
tend to associate exclusively with marriage (for instance, a companionate or affective
bond bound by oath).

Of course, it is possible that some couples who had sexual relations with each other
availed themselves of such adelphopoiesis unions. Perhaps some churches (who
probably would not have been approved of by higher church authorities) even operated
a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy regarding such uses of the rite. This area is ripe for
historical speculation. However, the unions themselves (which is the point at issue) were
not marriages, and were not designed for sexual bonding. As such, there is no evidence
whatsoever that the church ever officially sanctioned or blessed homosexual unions as
homosexual unions, which is the tendentious claim being made here.
One not infrequently encounters claims concerning same-sex marriages in history or
distant tribal cultures. In my experience, such claims tend to fall apart when subjected
to more careful analysis, analysis which seeks to determine the cultural meaning of the
unions or ceremonies in question: how they functioned in terms of the broader cultural
system, how they related to marriage between men and women, and the sorts of people
who entered into them. Often might find, for instance, that a particular union involved
no recognition of a sexual dimension: although homosexually active couples might enter
into them, they weren’t considered homosexual unions. Anachronism and cultural
projection are huge dangers of which we should be aware in this area.

15. Some opponents of same-sex marriage claim

that it will tend to weaken the value of lifelong
monogamy. Isn’t such a claim merely
homophobic, denying that same-sex couples can
be as committed to each other as male and female
couples?
Are gay persons hardwired to be more promiscuous or less committed to lifelong
relationships than straight persons? I don’t believe so. However, once you completely
separate sex from reproduction and sexual difference, sex loses a significant amount of
its power as a binding force between people, and as a curb to promiscuity. The
communities built around homosexual relationships will tend to exacerbate and amplify
these tendencies of particular sexual relationships.

First, sexual difference. Every heterosexual relationship will have to negotiate this in
some form or other. In order to establish the equality and similarity of gay relationships
to straight ones our society tends to think more in terms of a homogeneity of male and
female/masculine and feminine economies of desire. However, there are huge and
significant differences, as sexual difference has to be traversed in one case, but not in the
other.

Our gender has a first person presence in us. This plays a significant shaping role in our
relationships with people of the same or different genders. When two men or two
women have sexual relations they are relating to someone who operates within the same
gendered economy of desire, and they can presume that they will, to some extent or
other, know the territory. When we relate to someone of the opposite sex we are
venturing into territory of which we have no firsthand knowledge. In such an encounter
we are more vulnerable and so greater degrees of caution, reticence, trust-building and
the like will usually need to attend the task of negotiating sexual difference than would
be necessary in its absence, where our partner would be capable of more immediate
empathy with the nature of our desire.

On account of the differences between male and female economies of desire – despite
areas of considerable overlap – heterosexual relationships will be faced with the task of
forging a complementarity of desire to a degree that homosexual relationships will not.
The territory of masculine sexuality and the territory of feminine sexuality differ in
many respects and relationships formed between people from both territories will face
challenges that those formed within one will not.

In this respect at least I believe that we need to be very open about the fact that gay
relationships are categorically different from straight ones. With a denial of this
difference comes a denial of the significance of sexual difference. The result is to press
for homogeneity of desire, pushing the territories of male and female desire into the
regions of their overlap, abandoning the more adventurous traversal of sexual difference
as a relic of unenlightened thought, and denying the degree to which the other sex
remains a mystery to us. I believe that one of the results of this is to make things difficult
for those whose sexuality lies in an area where less overlap exists, as they are often
forced to operate in terms of a sexuality in which the differences of the economy of
desire are denied and hurt in the process.

Even contrasting the general tendencies of gay and lesbian relationships will serve to
illustrate the fact that the reality of sexual difference isn’t about to go anywhere. In
marriage the differences between a female economy of desire and a male economy of
desire must be negotiated, and the union represents a rapprochement between the two.
In same-sex relationships the partners are far more likely to bring the same expectations
to the relationship, and to have an intimate understanding of how the body and desire of
their partner works, as it is much like their own.

In contrast, marriage forges a bond between you and one who is not merely personally
other to you, but one who is sexually other, one whose body works quite differently, one
whose desire has different tendencies. This intrinsic other-orientation of marriage, and
its nature as rapprochement and negotiation of sexual difference does not merely serve
to curb selfishness; it also makes the relationship harder to form and thus establishes a
certain inertia for desire, male desire especially. When forms of desire are different,
relationships take longer to form, as they involve the navigation of the treacherous
waters of sexual difference, promiscuity will also be discouraged and there will be
greater emphasis upon the need to create secure and stable settings where this
negotiation of sexual difference can be safely undertaken.

Gender difference also introduces greater asymmetry in relationships and, hence,

imbalances of power. For instance, the fact that the wife gets pregnant but the husband
doesn’t can make her vulnerable and dependent upon the security of the relationship in
ways that he is not. One of the reasons that monogamy is so emphasized is on account of
these imbalances, imbalances that demand a firm mutual commitment to a structure in
which more powerful parties are limited in the degree to which they can take advantage
of their greater leverage and renegotiate the terms. Same-sex relationships, as they do
not typically have the same levels of imbalance of power have much less of a natural
need or demand for the objective norms of monogamy.

Second, reproduction. The big elephant in the room when talking about the difference
between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex is that homosexual sex is sterile by its
very nature: heterosexual sex is not. The difference that this makes is huge. This fact
impacts on all heterosexual activity, even where contraception is used. The fact that
heterosexual intercourse can be reproductive leads the sexes to place greater
expectations upon each other’s and their own sexual behaviour: it is a much weightier
matter.

As heterosexual relationships are apt for reproduction, the behaviour of men and
women (and especially women) in such relationships, even where contraception is
employed, will be taken as an indication of how suitable they are as reproductive
partners. When something as significant as a man’s knowledge of his relationship to his
children can rest upon his trust in his wife’s sexual exclusivity, sexual exclusivity will
have much greater significance.

Within all of this we see more of the reasons why men and women are drawn to ‘couple’.
Between men and women there are natural impetuses towards longer term coupling and
towards a higher demand for sexual exclusivity. These do not exist to the same degree in
homosexual relationships. These impetuses are founded on the sexual relationship
itself, and not merely on some emotional bond that exists between the sexual partners,
however strong that may be. It is because heterosexual sex is apt for reproduction that
strong expectations exist for each of the sexes with regard to sexual partners. Both sexes
expect the other sex to approach sex in general in a responsible way. Men expect women
not to be promiscuous, so that they can know when a child is theirs; women expect men
to be sexually exclusive because the security and status of their children can depend
upon it.
Where there is no sexual difference to navigate and sexual activity can be completely
divorced from any hint of reproductive activity the impetus towards lifelong and
exclusive coupling will be considerably less and will rely almost entirely on an emotional
bond (which can also give rise to the notion of emotional monogamy, in which no
strings attached sex can be engaged in outside the union). There is already a movement
in this direction in heterosexual relationships (which is one reason for the weakening of
marriage bonds), but escaping sexual difference and the fact of reproduction is a
struggle for heterosexual relationships: for homosexual relationships sexual difference
and reproduction were never issues in the first place. Heterosexuals must aspire to
purely contraceptive sex and the complete denial of reproduction, but this comes
naturally to homosexuals.

Finally, children. Sexual exclusivity benefits children in a number of ways and the fact
that male-female relationships are not merely reproductive unlike same-sex ones, but
are also more likely to involve shared child-rearing is hugely significant. Here are a few
ways that it makes a difference:

1. Sexual exclusivity strengthens the bond of paternity, ensuring fathers and their
children of their relationship, and of its significance, as the child’s origins lie in an act
that for his or her parents is practised exclusively within their relationship.

2. Sexual exclusivity situates sexual intercourse in the context of committed lifelong

bonds. By powerfully personalizing sex as the marital act, children in turn are
personalized. Where sex is depersonalized, children (especially the unborn) in turn tend
to be depersonalized, and the bond between biological parents and their children
weakened. A father will care far more about the child born to his beloved wife than to
the woman that he had a one night stand with.

3. Sexuality exclusivity and monogamy makes the duty of paternity extremely clear, and
lowers the risk of this duty not being met. Sexual exclusivity and monogamy ensures
that the duty for raising and loving the child falls squarely at the feet of one man, rather
than being divided between an absent biological father and a present stepfather, for
instance.
4. Sexual exclusivity and monogamy decrease the probability of jealousy, and the poison
that it introduces into relationships. It protects men and women from the jealousy
caused by other lovers or partners in the lives of their spouses. It protects children from
jealousy of the affection that their parents give to those other than their other parent. It
protects legal parents from jealousy of the biological parents of the children in their
relationship, and their place in the lives, identities, and affections of the children.

5. Sexual exclusivity serves to strongly discourage the straying of affections and

consequent household instability that polyamorous relationships could invite. Sexual
exclusivity puts a premium on household stability; non-monogamous relationships
don’t tend to do long term household and relational stability anywhere near as well.
6. The consequences of the breakdown of relationships with children in them are far
more severe than those without, providing a much greater incentive to work towards
reconciliation rather than abandoning an unhappy relationship.

In sum, on account of the realities that are operative within marriages between men and
women, they will have a much greater inclination towards sexual exclusivity and lifelong
union than those between persons of the same sex. With the introduction of same-sex
marriage and the increased tendency to view marriage in detachment from
reproduction, sexual difference, and child-bearing, it shouldn’t surprise us to see a
strong movement towards open marriages, non-monogamy, ‘emotionally monogamous’,
and ‘monogamish’ relationships, and away from the norm of lifelong sexual exclusivity.

16. Isn’t polygamy clear evidence against a

supposed historical consensus on marriage?
It can be readily admitted that countless different marriage customs exist across human
cultures. The claim of historical consensus focuses on certain dimensions of marriage
that have been as near to universal as one can get, right down to the present day. These
dimensions include an institutional expression of the interdependence of men and
women; an institutional encouragement of procreation under appropriate conditions;
the existence of public norms, meaning, and incentives; and expectation of the support
of parents for their offspring. For the overwhelming majority of human societies,
marriage has served to bind together biological (genetic and gestational), legal, and
social parenthood, ensuring that their unity is disrupted as rarely as possible.
Polygamy is one of the variable features of human marriage cultures. However, the
degree to which it represents a variation is frequently greatly overstated, especially in
the context of the current debates. Polygamy is not to be confused with a single marriage
to multiple wives. In a polygamous society, the wives of a polygynous husband are not
married to each other. Rather, polygamy is typically a matter of one man entering into
many marriages. However, each of these marriages consists of one man and one woman.
Polygamy doesn’t change the internal character of a marriage so much as permit
someone to be within a number of marriages at the same time. Obviously this will have a
detrimental impact upon the internal character of each marriage, but this effect is more
indirect.

There are a few rare examples in various cultures of practices resembling group
marriage. However, even in these cases, the interdependence of male and female is
typically central. They usually are instances of spouse-sharing among brothers, rather
than unions which involve both homosexual and heterosexual practice, let alone which
present them as possessing parity in their significance.

Even polygamous societies serve to underline the sheer prevalence of the cross-cultural
consensus on marriage: 1. Marriage involves interdependence between men and women;
2. A particular marriage exists between one man and one woman (save in the very rare
case of spouse-sharing); 3. The source of the union of marriage is in the bond between a
man and a woman (this bond may become fused with other such bonds, as in the case of
spouse-sharing, but the source of the union remains the same: remove the women and
the marriage ceases to exist); 4. Marriage encourages procreation. The closer we look,
the more that we will see that same-sex marriage represents a far more serious violation
of the nature of marriage than polygamy does.

1. Marriage has evolved throughout history, so it can change

again.

Different cultures have treated marriage differently. Some promoted

arranged marriages. Others tied marriage to dowries. Still others saw
marriage as a political relationship through which they could forge family
alliances.

But all these variations still embraced the fundamental, unchanging

essence of marriage. They still saw it, in general, as a public, lifelong
partnership between one man and one woman for the sake of generating
and raising children.

This understanding predates any government or religion. It’s a pre-

political, pre-religious institution evident even in cultures that had no law
or faith to promote it.

Yet, even supposing the essence of marriage could change, would that
mean it should? We know from other areas of life such as medical
research and nuclear physics that just because you can do something
doesn’t mean you ought. After all, such action may not be ethical or
serve the common good. Even if this argument had historical basis, it
would not necessarily be a good reason to change the meaning of
marriage.

2. Same-sex marriage is primarily about equality.

This argument is emotionally powerful since we all have deep, innate

longings for fairness and equality. Moreover, history has given us many
failures in this area, including women banned from voting and African-
Americans denied equal civil rights. The question, of course, is whether
same-sex couples are denied equality by not being allowed to marry
each other.

To answer that, we first must understand equality. Equality is not

equivalency. It does not mean treating every person or every group in
exactly the same way. To use an analogy, men and women have equal
rights, but because they significantly differ they require separate
restrooms. Equality means treating similar things similarly, but not things
that are fundamentally different.

Second, there are really two issues here: the equality of different people
and the equality of different relationships. The current marriage laws
already treat all people equally. Any unmarried man and unmarried
woman can marry each other, regardless of their sexual orientation; the
law is neutral with respect to orientation just as it ignores race and
religion.

The real question is whether same-sex relationships differ significantly

from opposite-sex relationships, and the answer is yes. The largest
difference is that same-sex couples cannot produce children, nor ensure
a child’s basic right to be raised by his mother and father. These facts
alone mean we’re talking about two very different types of relationships.
It’s wrong, therefore, to assume the state should necessarily treat them
as if they were the same.

Same-sex marriage advocates may argue that it’s discriminatory to favor

heterosexual spouses over homosexual couples. With all of the benefits
flowing from marriage, this unfairly endorses one set of relationships
over another. But if the state endorsed same-sex marriage, it would then
be favoring gay “spouses” over unmarried heterosexual couples. The
argument runs both ways and is ultimately self-defeating.

3. Everyone has the right to marry whomever he or she

loves.
Though catchy, few people truly believe this slogan. Most of us
acknowledge there should be at least some limitations on marriage for
social or health reasons. For example, a man can’t marry a young child
or a close relative. And if a man is truly in love with two different women,
he’s legally not allowed to marry both of them, even if both agree to such
an arrangement.

So, the real question here is not whether marriage should be limited, but
how. To answer that, we must determine why the government even
bothers with marriage. It’s not to validate two people who love each
other, nice as that is. It’s because marriage between one man and one
woman is likely to result in a family with children. Since the government
is deeply interested in the propagation and stabilization of society, it
promotes and regulates this specific type of relationship above all
others.

To put it simply, in the eyes of the state, marriage is not about adults; it’s
about children. Claiming a “right to marry whomever I love” ignores the
true emphasis of marriage.

Notice that nobody is telling anyone whom he or she can or cannot love.
Every person, regardless of orientation, is free to enter into private
romantic relationships with whomever he or she chooses. But there is no
general right to have any relationship recognized as marriage by the
government.

4. Same-sex marriage won’t affect you, so what’s the big

deal?

Since marriage is a relationship between two individuals, what effect

would it have on the rest of us? At first glance, it sounds like a good
question, but a deeper look reveals that since marriage is a public
institution, redefining it would affect all of society.

First, it would weaken marriage. After same-sex marriage was legislated

in Spain in 2005, marriage rates plummeted. The same happened in the
Netherlands. Redefining marriage obscures its meaning and purpose,
thereby discouraging people from taking it seriously.

Second, it would affect education and parenting. After same-sex

marriage was legalized in Canada, the Toronto School Board
implemented a curriculum promoting homosexuality and denouncing
“heterosexism.” They also produced posters titled “Love Knows No
Gender,” which depicted both homosexual and polygamous relationships
as equivalent to marriage. Despite parents’ objections, the board
decreed that they had no right to remove their children from such
instruction. This and many similar cases confirm that when marriage is
redefined, the new definition is forced on children, regardless of their
parents’ desires.Third, redefining marriage would threaten moral and
religious liberty. This is already evident in our own country. In
Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., for instance, Catholic Charities
can no longer provide charitable adoption services based on new
definitions of marriage. Elsewhere, Canadian Bishop Frederick Henry
was investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for simply
explaining the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality in a
newspaper column. Examples like this show how redefining marriage
threatens religious freedom.

5. Same-sex marriage will not lead to other redefinitions.

When marriage revolves around procreation, it makes sense to restrict it

to one man and one woman. That’s the only relationship capable of
producing children. But if we redefine marriage as simply a loving,
romantic union between committed adults, what principled reason would
we have for rejecting polygamist or polyamorous — that is, multiple-
person — relationships as marriages?

Thomas Peters, cultural director at the National Organization for

Marriage, doesn’t see one. “Once you sever the institution of marriage
from its biological roots, there is little reason to cease redefining it to suit
the demands of various interest groups,” Peters said.
This isn’t just scaremongering or a hypothetical slippery slope. These
aftereffects have already been observed in countries that have legalized
same-sex marriage. For example, in Brazil and the Netherlands, three-
way relationships were recently granted the full rights of marriage. After
marriage was redefined in Canada, a polygamist man launched legal
action to have his relationships recognized by law. Even in our own
country, the California Legislature passed a bill to legalize families of
three or more parents.

Procreation is the main reason civil marriage is limited to two people.

When sexual love replaces children as the primary purpose of marriage,
restricting it to just two people no longer makes sense.

6. If same-sex couples can’t marry because they can’t

reproduce, why can infertile couples marry?

This argument concerns two relatively rare situations: younger infertile

couples and elderly couples. If marriage is about children, why does the
state allow the first group to marry? The reason is that while we know
every same-sex couple is infertile, we don’t generally know that about
opposite-sex couples.

Some suggest forcing every engaged couple to undergo mandatory

fertility testing before marriage. But this would be outrageous. Besides
being prohibitively expensive, it would also be an egregious invasion of
privacy, all to detect an extremely small minority of couples.

Another problem is that infertility is often misdiagnosed. Fertile couples

may be wrongly denied marriage under such a scenario. This is never
the case for same-sex couples, who cannot produce children together.

But why does the government allow elderly couples to marry? It’s true
that most elderly couples cannot reproduce (though women as old as 70
have been known to give birth). However, these marriages are so rare
that it’s simply not worth the effort to restrict them. Also, elderly
marriages still feature the right combination of man and woman needed
to make children. Thus they provide a healthy model for the rest of
society, and are still capable of offering children a home with a mother
and a father.

7. Children will not be affected since there is no difference

between same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents.

This argument was most famously stated in 2005 when the American
Psychological Association (APA) wrote that “not a single study has found
children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant
respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”

However, several recent studies have put that claim to rest. In June,
LSU scholar Loren Marks published a peer-reviewed paper in Social
Science Research. It examined the 59 studies that the APA relied on for
its briefing. Marks discovered that not one of the studies used a large,
random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their
children. Several used extremely small “convenience” samples,
recruiting participants through advertisements or word of mouth, and
many failed to even include a control group. Furthermore, the studies did
not track the children over time and were largely based on interviews
with parents about the upbringing of their own children — a virtual
guarantee of biased results.

One month later, Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus released a

comprehensive study titled “How Different Are the Adult Children of
Parents Who Have Same-Sex Relationships?” His research used a
large, random and national sample and its scope was unprecedented
among prior work in this field. Contrary to the APA, Regnerus found that
for a majority of outcomes, children raised by parents with same-sex
relationships drastically underperformed children raised in a household
with married, biological parents.

He quickly noted that his study didn’t necessarily show that same-sex
couples are bad parents, but that it did definitively put to rest the claim
that there are “no differences” among parenting combinations.
8. Opposition to same-sex marriage is based on bigotry,
homophobia and religious hatred.

These accusations are not so much an argument for same-sex marriage

as personal attacks designed to shut down real dialogue. Let’s look at
each one.

First, bigotry. A quick visit to Facebook, Twitter or any online comment

box confirms that for many people, support for traditional marriage is
tantamount to bigotry.

So, is the charge accurate? Well, the definition of bigotry is “unwilling to

tolerate opinions different than your own.” However, tolerating opinions
does not require enshrining them through law. One can tolerate
advocates of same-sex marriage, and seriously engage the idea, while
still rejecting it for compelling reasons.

Second, homophobia. This refers to a fear of homosexuality, and the

assumption is that people who oppose same-sex marriage do so
because they’re irrationally afraid. But as this article shows, there are
many good reasons to oppose same-sex marriage that have nothing to
do with fear. Branding someone “homophobic” is typically used to end
rational discussion.

Third, religious hatred. Some people disagree with same-sex marriage

solely for religious reasons. But, again, as this article demonstrates, one
can disagree for other reasons, without appealing to the Bible, divine
revelation or any religious authority. You don’t need religious teachings
to understand, analyze and discuss the purpose of marriage or its effects
on the common good.

If these accusations were all true, it would mean that the overwhelming
majority of people throughout time — who by and large supported
traditional marriage — would likewise be homophobic, intolerant bigots.
That would include the most profound thinkers in many different
traditions: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Musonius Rufus, Xenophanes,
Plutarch, St. Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant and Mahatma Gandhi.
Most people would reject such an absurdity.

9. The struggle for same-sex marriage is just like the civil

rights movement of the 1960s.

The suggestion here is that sex is similar to race, and therefore denying
marriage for either reason is wrong. The problem, however, is that
interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are significantly different.

For instance, nothing prevents interracial couples from fulfilling the basic
essence of marriage — a public, lifelong relationship ordered toward
procreation. Because of this, the anti-miscegenation laws of the 1960s
were wrong to discriminate against interracial couples. Yet same-sex
couples are not biologically ordered toward procreation and, therefore,
cannot fulfill the basic requirements of marriage.

It’s important to note that African-Americans, who have the most

poignant memories of marital discrimination, generally disagree that
preventing interracial marriage is like banning same-sex marriage. For
example, when Californians voted on Proposition 8, a state amendment
defining marriage as between one man and one woman, some 70
percent of African-Americans voted in favor.

According to Peters, “Likening same-sex marriage to interracial marriage

is puzzling and offensive to most African-Americans, who are shocked at
such a comparison.”

10. Same-sex marriage is inevitable, so we should stand on

the right side of history.

On Nov. 6, voters in three states — Maine, Maryland and Washington —

voted against marriage as it has traditionally been understood. In
Minnesota, voters rejected a measure to amend the state constitution to
define marriage as between one man and one woman. Many advocates
of same-sex marriage considered this a sign that the marriage tides are
turning. But is that true? And if so, how does that shift impact the case
for same-sex marriage?

First, if the tide is in fact turning, it’s still little more than a ripple. The
states that voted in November to redefine marriage did so with slim
margins, none garnering more than 53 percent of the vote. The tiny
victories were despite record-breaking funding advantages, sitting
governors campaigning for same-sex marriage and strong support
among the media.

Before these four aberrations, 32 states had voted on the definition of

marriage. Each and every time they voted to affirm marriage as the
union of one man and one woman. Of the six states that recognized
same-sex marriage before the November election, none arrived there
through a vote by the people. Each redefinition was imposed by state
legislatures and courts. Overall, Americans remain strongly in favor of
traditional marriage. Most polls show roughly two-thirds of the country
wants to keep marriage as it is.

Yet, even if the tides have recently shifted, that does not make
arguments in its favor any more persuasive. We don’t look to other moral
issues and say, “Well, people are eventually going to accept it, so we
might as well get in line.” We shouldn’t do that for same-sex marriage,
either.

The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as being

between a man and a woman. In upholding gay marriage bans in
Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee on Nov. 6, 2014, 6th US
District Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton wrote that "marriage
has long been a social institution defined by relationships between men
and women. So long defined, the tradition is measured in millennia, not
centuries or decades. So widely shared, the tradition until recently had
been adopted by all governments and major religions of the
world." [117] In the Oct. 15, 1971 decision Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme
Court of Minnesota found that "the institution of marriage as a union of
man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of
children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis." [49] John F.
Harvey, MA, STL, late Catholic priest, wrote in July 2009 that
"Throughout the history of the human race the institution of marriage has
been understood as the complete spiritual and bodily communion of one
man and one woman." [18] [109]

Marriage is for procreation and should not be extended to same-

sex couples because they cannot produce children
together. Allowing gay marriage would only further shift the purpose of
marriage from producing and raising children to adult gratification. [19] A
California Supreme Court ruling from 1859 stated that "the first purpose
of matrimony, by the laws of nature and society, is
procreation." [90] Nobel Prize-winning philosopher Bertrand Russell
stated that "it is through children alone that sexual relations become
important to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal
institution." [91] Court papers filed in July 2014 by attorneys defending
Arizona's gay marriage ban stated that "the State regulates marriage for
the primary purpose of channeling potentially procreative sexual
relationships into enduring unions for the sake of joining children to both
their mother and their father... Same-sex couples can never provide a
child with both her biological mother and her biological father." Contrary
to the pro gay marriage argument that some different-sex couples
cannot have children or don't want them, even in those cases there is
still the potential to produce children. Seemingly infertile heterosexual
couples sometimes produce children, and medical advances may allow
others to procreate in the future. Heterosexual couples who do not wish
to have children are still biologically capable of having them, and may
change their minds. [98]

Children need both a mother and a father. Girls who are raised apart
from their fathers are reportedly at higher risk for early sexual activity
and teenage pregnancy. [52] Children without a mother are deprived of
the emotional security and unique advice that mothers provide. A 2012
study by Mark Regnerus, PhD, Associate Professor of Sociology at the
University of Texas at Austin, found that children raised by parents who
had same-sex relationships suffered more difficulties in life (including
sexual abuse and unemployment in later life) than children raised by
"intact biological famil[ies]." [133] Doug Mainwaring, the openly gay co-
founder of National Capital Tea Party Patriots, stated that "it became
increasingly apparent to me, even if I found somebody else exactly like
me, who loved my kids as much as I do, there would still be a gaping
hole in their lives because they need a mom... I don't want to see
children being engineered for same-sex couples where there is either a
mom missing or a dad missing." [53]

Legalizing gay marriage could lead down a "slippery slope," giving

people in polygamous, incestuous, bestial, and other nontraditional
relationships the right to marry. [10] Glen Lavy, JD, senior counsel
with the Alliance Defense Fund, argued in a May 21, 2008 Los Angeles
Times op-ed, "The movement for polygamy and polyamory is poised to
use the successes of same-sex couples as a springboard for further de-
institutionalizing marriage." [11] In Apr. 2013 Slate writer Jillian Keenan
wrote: "Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than
homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not
inherently more or less 'correct' than marriage among three (or four, or
six) consenting adults." [71]James C. Dobson, Founder and Chairman of
Focus on the Family, predicted in 2005 that legalizing same-sex
marriage will enable "group marriage," "marriage between daddies and
little girls," and "marriage between a man and his donkey." [136]
Allowing gay couples to wed could further weaken the institution of
marriage. Traditional marriage is already threatened with high divorce
rates (between 40% and 50%), and 40.7% of babies were born to
unmarried mothers in 2012. [50] [51] [116]Former US Senator (R-PA)
and presidential candidate Rick Santorum stated that "Legalization of
gay marriage would further undermine an institution that is essential to
the well-being of children and our society. Do we need to confuse future
generations of Americans even more about the role and importance of
an institution that is so critical to the stability of our country?" [137] Ryan
T. Anderson, William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society at
The Heritage Foundation, said "In recent decades, marriage has been
weakened by a revisionist view that is more about adults’ desires than
children’s needs... Redefining marriage to include same-sex
relationships is the culmination of this revisionism, and it would leave
emotional intensity as the only thing that sets marriage apart from other
bonds." [70]

Homosexuality is immoral and unnatural. J. Matt Barber, Associate

Dean for Online Programs at Liberty University School of Law, stated
that "Every individual engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, who has
adopted a homosexual identity, they know, intuitively, that what they're
doing is immoral, unnatural, and self-destructive, yet they thirst for that
affirmation." A 2003 set of guidelines signed by Pope John Paul II stated:
"There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to
be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for
marriage and family... Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go
against the natural moral law." [147] Former Arkansas governor and
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee stated in Oct. 2014
that gay marriage is "inconsistent with nature and nature’s law." [148]
Gay marriage is contrary to the word of God and is incompatible
with the beliefs, sacred texts, and traditions of many religious
groups. The Bible, in Leviticus 18:22, states: "Thou shalt not lie with
mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination," thus condemning
homosexual relationships. [120] In Islamic tradition, several hadiths
(passages attributed to the Prophet Muhammad) condemn gay and
lesbian relationships, including the sayings "When a man mounts
another man, the throne of God shakes," and "Sihaq [lesbian sex] of
women is zina [illegitimate sexual intercourse]." [121]The Catholic
Church, United Methodist Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, National Association of
Evangelicals, and American Baptist Churches USA all oppose same-sex
marriage. [119] Two orthodox Jewish groups, the Orthodox Agudath
Israel of America and the Orthodox Union, also oppose gay marriage, as
does mainstream Islam. [13] [119]According to a July 31, 2003
statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and
approved by Pope John Paul II, marriage "was established by the
Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No
ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage
exists solely between a man and a woman…" [54] Pope Benedict stated
in Jan. 2012 that gay marriage threatened "the future of humanity
itself." [145]

Legalizing gay marriage often leads to an end to domestic

partnership benefits for gay and straight couples, which
disadvantages couples who choose not to get married. Maryland
ended health insurance benefits for new domestic partnerships after
same-sex marriage became legal in the state in 2013. [124] [135] The
state of Washington automatically converted domestic partnerships to
marriages when they legalized gay marriage in 2012, providing no option
to retain domestic partnerships or civil unions unless one partner is at
least 62 years old. [134] [123] The US Defense Department announced
in Aug. 2013 that it would grant health insurance and other benefits to
same-sex married partners of US troops, but that domestic partners
would no longer be granted the same benefits. [125] The Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) and the US Department of Labor recognized
same-sex married couples for the purpose of granting tax, retirement,
and health insurance benefits after the US Supreme Court declared part
of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional in 2013, but
they did not include domestic partnerships or civil unions. [126]

Gay marriage will accelerate the assimilation of gays into

mainstream heterosexual culture to the detriment of the
homosexual community. The gay community has created its own
vibrant culture. By reducing the differences in opportunities and
experiences between gay and heterosexual people, this unique culture
may cease to exist. Lesbian activist M.V. Lee Badgett, PhD, Director of
the Center for Public Policy and Administration at the University of
Massachusetts at Amherst, stated that for many gay activists "marriage
means adopting heterosexual forms of family and giving up distinctively
gay family forms and perhaps even gay and lesbian culture." [14]Paula
Ettelbrick, JD, Professor of Law and Women's Studies, wrote in 1989,
"Marriage runs contrary to two of the primary goals of the lesbian and
gay movement: the affirmation of gay identity and culture and the
validation of many forms of relationships." [15]

Marriage is an outmoded, oppressive institution that should be

weakened, not expanded. LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender) activist collective Against Equality states that "Gay
marriage apes hetero privilege... [and] increases economic inequality by
perpetuating a system which deems married beings more worthy of the
basics like health care and economic rights." [84] The leaders of the Gay
Liberation Front in New York said in July 1969, "We expose the
institution of marriage as one of the most insidious and basic sustainers
of the system. The family is the microcosm of oppression." [16] Self-
described queer activist Anders Zanichkowsky stated in June 2013 that
the campaign for gay marriage "intentionally and maliciously erases and
excludes so many queer people and cultures, particularly trans and
gender non-conforming people, poor queer people, and queer people in
non-traditional families... marriage thinks non-married people are deviant
and not truly deserving of civil rights." [127]

People should not have their tax dollars used to support something
they believe is wrong. Peter S. Sprigg, MDiv, Senior Fellow for Policy
Studies at the Family Research Council, said that if gay marriage were
legalized, "[t]axpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to
subsidize homosexual relationships... One of the key arguments often
heard in support of homosexual civil marriage revolves around all the
government 'benefits' that homosexuals claim they are denied. Many of
these 'benefits' involve one thing–taxpayer money that homosexuals are
eager to get their hands on." [146] Gay marriage would entitle gay
couples to typical marriage benefits including claiming a tax exemption
for a spouse, receiving social security payments from a deceased
spouse, and coverage by a spouse’s health insurance policy, largely at
taxpayers' expense. On Dec. 17, 2009 the Congressional Budget Office
estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending
employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal
employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social
Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory
spending and $302 million in discretionary spending between 2010 and
2019. [37]
Marriage is a privilege, not a right. The US Constitution contains no
explicit right to marry. [99]The European Court of Human Rights ruled on
June 24, 2010 that the state has a valid interest in protecting the
traditional definition of marriage, and stated that the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms "enshrined the
traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a
woman." [101] [102] Society can choose not to allow same-sex couples
to marry, just as it does not allow a person to marry more than one
partner or allow minors or close relatives to marry. [100] Matthew D.
Staver, JD, Dean of the Liberty University School of Law, explained:
"The unifying characteristics of the protected classes within the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 include (1) a history of longstanding, widespread
discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable
characteristics... 'Sexual orientation' does not meet any of the three
objective criteria shared by the historically protected civil rights
categories." [62]

Legalizing gay marriage advances the "homosexual agenda" and

unfairly paints opponents as bigots. The Illinois Family Institute states
that if gay marriage is legalized, "Children will be taught that
homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality... that children do
not have any inherent rights to know and be raised by a mother and a
father... [and] that opposition to the legalization of 'same-sex marriage'
was equivalent to opposition to the legalization of interracial marriage.
They will be taught that opposition to both was motivated by ignorance
and hatred." [85] Lou Sheldon, Founder of the Traditional Values
Coalition, warned of the influence on children of the "homosexual
agenda," writing that "[o]ur little children are being targeted by the
homosexuals and liberals... To be brainwashed to think that
homosexuality is the moral equivalent of heterosexuality. We can't let
that happen." [150]
Civil unions and domestic partnerships can provide the protections
and benefits gay couples need without changing the definition of
marriage. Privileges available to couples in civil unions and domestic
partnerships can include health insurance benefits, inheritance without a
will, the ability to file state taxes jointly, and hospital visitation
rights. [155] [156] 2016 presidential candidate and former Hewlett-
Packard CEO Carly Fiorina stated that civil unions are adequate as an
equivalent to marriage for same-sex couples: "Benefits are being
bestowed to gay couples [in civil unions]... I believe we need to respect
those who believe that the word marriage has a spiritual foundation...
Why can't we respect and tolerate that while at the same time saying
government cannot bestow benefits unequally." [157] 43rd US President
George W. Bush expressed his support for same-sex civil unions while
in office: "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a
legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so... I strongly
believe that marriage ought to be defined as between a union between a
man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to
have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights
like others." [158]

1. When a man loves a bridge

A slippery slope argument is when you argue that allowing one thing will
inexorably lead to a far worse thing. Eric Abetz suggested that marriage
equality could subsequently lead to people marrying the Harbour Bridge
because "why not?" And full credit to him — I've never previously seen a
slippery slope argument involving an actual slope.

Eric Abetz, with glasses lowers, looks over his shoulder during Senate
estimates.
PHOTO: Senator Eric Abetz offered a slippery slope argument that
actually involved a slope. (AAP: Lukas Coch)

But let's answer his question. Bridges, at least as far as I know, are not
sentient beings able to consent to marriage. Besides, last time I
checked, the Harbour Bridge was very much a pay-to-play operation, if
you get what I mean.

The broader problem with slippery slope arguments is that defining

precise limits on things is essentially what governments do. The
Medicare schedule, for instance, precisely delineates what the
Government will pay for, and what it will not.

Sometimes these lines can move over time — but again, that is what
government is supposed to do. Australian governments once prevented
Aboriginal people from marrying non-Aboriginal people. Now, they don't,
because we know better. Ending dowries, changing ages of consent, no-
fault divorce — all evolutions in marriage.

The High Court battle

Who is fighting against the same-sex marriage postal survey and what
arguments will they be making in the High Court?

Nobody thinks you can marry a road, and I know this because I've been
trying to make an honest span of Brisbane's Go-Between Bridge for
years. Besides, Sydney Harbour Bridge fans know that the Bradfield
Highway already is very much hitched to the Cahill Expressway.
In recent days, Cory Bernardi has made his own version of this
argument via a "pink rainbow Trojan horse", which looks so much like a
My Little Pony that he may well accidentally convince impressionable
young girls that marriage equality involves rainbows, sparkles and magic
friendship. Which, to be fair, it does.

2. Kevin Andrews' cycling buddies

Our politicians love arguing via analogies, which is where you try to
make a point about something controversial by pointing out something
uncontroversial. This rhetorical device is known as the straw man.

Former prime minster Tony Abbott and backbencher Kevin Andrews sit
together in Parliament.

PHOTO: Former prime minster Tony Abbott and backbencher Kevin

Andrews sit together in Parliament in March. (ABC News: Matt Roberts)

In the early days of this debate, Coalition backbencher Kevin Andrews

made an analogy between same-sex couples and his cycling buddies.

"I have an affectionate relationship with my cycling mates, we go cycling

on the weekend," he said, invoking an image of middle-aged men in
cycling garb that many of us are still frantically trying to purge from their
retinas. "But that's not marriage."
Well, no, unless the Pollie Pedal regularly transitions into a Polyamory
Pedal — but Andrews' point seems a better justification for a ban on
Lycra than a ban on gay marriage.

Not all "friendly" relationships should be recognised via marriage — well,

yes.

As Wizard of Oz fans know, straw men generally display more logical

acumen than this.

Perhaps the most generous thing that can be said here is that in such a
heated debate, it's lovely to have at least one thing on which we can all
agree.

Which is not to say that if the law changes, two male cycling mates
shouldn't be able to get hitched if they so desire. And if they do, Kevin
Andrews would no doubt recommend that they have some marriage
counselling beforehand.

3. Political correctness gone mad!

Tony Abbott, who has a particular genius for opposing things, claims that
people should oppose same-sex marriage if they don't like political
correctness — which is of course, well beyond the bounds of the very
limited question being asked by the ABS.
Media player: "Space" to play, "M" to mute, "left" and "right" to seek.

VIDEO: Tony Abbott welcomes postal vote on same-sex marriage (ABC

News)

"I say to you, if you don't like same-sex marriage, vote no," he said,
which is indisputably sensible advice, as that's the question on the table.

But then he went on. "If you're worried about religious freedom, and
freedom of speech, vote no. If you don't like political correctness, vote no
— because voting no will help to stop political correctness in its tracks."

This feels a bit like tone policing, fittingly for a Tony who used to live in a
police college. Tone policing is a kind of "genetic fallacy", where you look
at where an argument came from instead of what it says.

Here, Abbott is discrediting an argument by focussing on the way people

express it — so instead of judging marriage equality on its merits, you
reject it because it's just another instance of how namby-pamby lefties
are always whining on about some vegan intersex poetry, or some other
equally crude stereotype.

You reduce an argument to just more "blah blah blah" from the usual
suspects.
But even though many of those on the left can admittedly be incredibly
annoying, it doesn't mean they're wrong.

Similarly, Tony Abbott isn't necessarily wrong on occasions when he's

sober just because he sometimes enjoys the company of Kevin Andrews
and Peter Costello more than most people would imagine possible.

4. Won't someone think of the children?

This is a favourite of Lyle Shelton from the Australian Christian Lobby,

and is what's known in formal logic as an appeal to tradition — the view
that because something has long been the case, it must therefore
remain so.

Australian Christian Lobby Managing Director Lyle Shelton at a press

conference at Parliament House in Canberra, Tuesday, Aug. 8, 2017

PHOTO: An appeal to tradition: Australian Christian Lobby managing

director Lyle Shelton. (AAP: Mick Tsikas)

But even though some of Australia's social mores are derived from
Christian societies in Europe, our Parliament is constitutionally barred
from imposing one religion on all of us, and the current debate is about
secular marriage of the sort already performed by celebrants for those
seeking to avoid the involvement of the church.

The postal survey is a threat to us

I've spent a bit of time recently thinking about what exactly it is the
Liberals find so threatening about my family, writes Cathy Brown.

Of course, the Anglican Church itself was created so Henry VIII could
get divorced — and let's not forget that Jesus was raised by a man who
was not his biological father, which might suggest the virtue of sympathy
for blended families.

The idea that kids need the active involvement of a father and a mother
to be "normal" is not borne out by data, or in the many same-sex and
single-parent families we already have, but it remains powerful after
centuries of being the social norm.

Of course, this has very little to do with the question at hand.

Lyle Shelton is making a case for non-straight couples to be prevented

from having children.

But they already can, and nobody appears to contemplate preventing

them, so the proponents of this argument instead uses their concern to
justify his opposition to same-sex marriage.

The survey question does have one clear connection to children, as

answering yes would allow the many same-sex couples who currently
co-parent to get married and some conservatives — such as David
Cameron — who believe marriage is a precious source of familial
stability support same-sex marriage on that basis.

5. What if it teaches people it's okay to be gay?

"Kids in Year 7 were asked to role-play being a same-sex relationship",

warned one of the women in the Coalition for Marriage's first ad. I
remember studying Macbeth in school and being asked to role-play both
the Scottish king and his wife, and somehow that hasn't turned me into a
mass-murderer. I also acted out Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? in a high
school English class, and so far my marriage has yet to descend to
anything like those depths, fortunately.

Media player: "Space" to play, "M" to mute, "left" and "right" to seek.

VIDEO: The first ad ahead of the same-sex marriage survey (ABC

News)

Many of these arguments display a discomfort for gay and lesbian

people in general. While of course people are entitled to their private
views, acting on that discomfort contravenes antidiscrimination laws, and
tends to make people social pariahs — sorry, young lawyers.

I wish kids in my high school had been asked to role-play gay

relationships in Year 7. "Gay" was used constantly as a slur in the
playground. Some of my classmates have now come out, and I just hate
to think how difficult we must've made things for them.
As opposed to the other arguments listed above, there is no rhetorical
sleight of hand going on here. The two options are a society where many
people are told that their sexuality is wrong and suffer as a result, or a
society where consenting adults are allowed to love other adults as they
please.